Mary Ann Collins (A Former Catholic Nun)

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by SixKids:
Why did the RC Church add book at trent if the
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> canon is "closed."

? </font>[/QUOTE]Perhaps, the RC Church didn't "add book at Trent" but merely reaffirmed books that were considered Scripture by most of the Church throughout history and declared as such during regional synods and councils. Perhaps, this was done in reaction to Protestants subtracting books from the canon.

Who knows...

 

[JFS]

SixKids Wrote:

Why did the RC Church add book at trent if the

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
canon is "closed."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

?

Here is what the council of Carthage in 419 had to say about the canons of scripture:

The Fourth Council of Carthage in 419 again reaffirmed the Canons as defined in previous councils...

CANON XXIV. (Greek xxvii.)
"That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture.
ITEM, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows: * Genesis * Exodus * Leviticus * Numbers * Deuteronomy * Joshua the Son of Nun * The Judges * Ruth * The Kings (4 books) * The Chronicles (2 books) * Job * The Psalter * The Five books of Solomon (includes Wisdom and Sirach) * The Twelve Books of the Prophets * Isaiah * Jeremiah * Ezechiel * Daniel * Tobit * Judith * Esther * Ezra (2 books) * Maccabees (2books).
The New Testament: * The Gospels (4 books) * The Acts of the Apostles (1 book) * The Epistles of Paul (14) * The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle (2) * The Epistles of John the Apostle (3) * The Epistles of James the Apostle (1) * The Epistle of Jude the Apostle (1) * The Revelation of John (1 book).
Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, [Pope] Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church."
[This is Canon xxxvj. of Hippo., 393. The last phrase allowing the reading of the "passions of the Martyrs" on their Anniversaries is omitted from the African code.]

http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/canon.htm

Which books were added?

God Belss You


John

 

[jmgainor]

Hi,

My first post here. I happened upon this board and this thread, and, being somewhat acquainted with Mary Ann, thought I ought to make a response on her behalf to some of the tripe I've seen on this thread.

Be assured that I haven't taken the time to read all 15 pages of this thread—so I don't know what is contained therein; but the fact that there are 15 pages is a testimony to the fact that someone has felt that there is something about Mary Ann worth talking about.

The first page of this thread contains such gems as this one by MikeS:

I just love how these supposed former Catholics never seem to have kept a single Catholic thought in their heads. You'd expect maybe one or two areas where they still thought the Catholic teaching was the correct one, or at least still had some doubt, but no, they all seem to become 100% "Pure Protestants," without the faintest trace of their former faith, including, what else, a nasty and un-Christian (but oh so self-righteous) attitude towards the Catholic Church.

Compare and contrast that with the very common Protestant-to-Catholic convert attitude, who is very thankful for his/her Protestant past, but who had to follow the path of truth into the True Church.

Funny how those who leave the Catholic Church feel the need to revile it, while those who leave Protestantism for Catholicism rarely exhibit that behavior.

Assuming, of course, that Mary Ann "I can't answer all my email" Collins is even real...

and this one by LaRae:

Wake up and smell the coffee Kathryn....credibility is not a requirement when one desires to attack the Catholic Church. All one needs to do is find something online etc and use it....who cares if it's true or not, no need to verify truth....that's not what it's about.....as long as it fits their agenda then it's 'ok'.

Of course they have to tap dance around the commandments and other scripture....but I don't see that this slows them down much.

And, for the sake of some semblance of brevity, I won't post them all, as I would have to post nearly the entire first page.

I can assure you, MikeJ, that Mary Ann is very real. My only acquaintence with her has been via email, but we've corresponded enough that I have no qualms about standing up in her defense. I would suggest that perhaps you offer some intelligent response to some of the material in her book, rather than mere empty innuendo. She has done quite a bit of research to substantiate the material in the book; and I think the onus is on you to provide some substantial rebuttal to at least something in the book when you attempt to malign her. Have you anything to offer? If so, bring it forth.

And, Kathryn and LaRae, I see that you also are skilled at puffy hauteur, but seemingly bereft of the capacity for an intelligent response. Have you anything to say that would merit a serious response? If so, let's have it. If you wish to discuss verifiable truth I have a fully loaded arsenal of it in my Papacy Uncovered website. I would be more than happy to discuss issues of Truth, Scripture, History with you, assuming you have something really worth adding to the conversation.

And for all here who are yet the mental, emotional, and spiritual slaves of popery, I can assure you that when Christ and the Holy Spirit set a person free from the papal darkness (as they did me, and countless others) it is to lift him/her to the higher realm of light and life and love and truth that are in Christ.

My plea to you is to forsake the papal darkness and walk in the light of Christ; forsake the multitude of papal frauds and deceits, and walk in the Spirit of Truth in Christ; forsake the spirit of murderous pride and arrogance that is integral to popery (as history evidences so clearly), and learn the meekness and gentleness of Christ; forake the multitude of false doctrine and idolatry that are woven into the fabric of popery, and place your faith and trust rather in Christ and in His New Testament, which He signed and sealed with His precious blood.

Lovin' the Truth,

Mike

P.S. There are links in this post that aren't readily visible (in the preview) until you mouse-over them. If anyone wishes to respond, you would do well to spend some time at those links first.

 

[Carson Weber]

Mike,

The papacy uncovered site is yours? I read through it a while back & was fairly impressed with the breadth of information you covered, yet it was quite unconvincing.. esp. after having read Stephen K. Ray's Upon This Rock. Are you familiar with this text? Have you read it?

 

[D28guy]

Let me just jump in here and say that I have Ms Collins website in my favorites folder, and find it to be an excellant resource. The information is fully annotated with sources given. I link to it from time to time. Its an excellant web-site that I would recommend to anyone. Also, I have corresponded with Ms Collins as well, and have found her to be open and willing to discuss issues.

I would think however that someone probably wouldnt get a response from her if the email started with...

"The deceiving Ms Collins,

After having read the tripe on your web-site filled with lies..."

God bless,

Mike

 

[Harley4Him]

Originally posted by jmgainor:
And, Kathryn and LaRae, I see that you also are skilled at puffy hauteur, but seemingly bereft of the capacity for an intelligent response.

Thank you for that excellent example of how True Christian out to respond to arrogant catholics. You would make a great Universal Priest!

 

[jmgainor]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
Mike,

The papacy uncovered site is yours? I read through it a while back & was fairly impressed with the breadth of information you covered, yet it was quite unconvincing.. esp. after having read Stephen K. Ray's Upon This Rock. Are you familiar with this text? Have you read it?

Carson, I haven't read Stephen Ray's book. I would be interested in specifically why you think it more convincing than the material I set forth? Please set forth his arguments, and don't ask me to read the book. I think I am pretty familiar with the arguments.

The Rock on which the Church is being built is Christ, and not Peter. There is a lot of material that can be brought forth for that, and all of the Peter = (the) 'rock' arguments are found to be unpersuasive when looked deeply into. They are all built on specious and shallow reasoning—assuming conclusions that are founded on false premises. They are subtle enough to fool the masses, but can't stand up under scrutiny.

 

[jmgainor]

Originally posted by Harley4Him:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by jmgainor:
And, Kathryn and LaRae, I see that you also are skilled at puffy hauteur, but seemingly bereft of the capacity for an intelligent response.

Thank you for that excellent example of how True Christian out to respond to arrogant catholics. You would make a great Universal Priest! </font>[/QUOTE]Harley, I'll call it as I see it. Anyone who maligns another behind their back, as these two posters have done, without including some instructive correction to go with it, is deserving of a rebuke. Slander and gossip are as unworthy of the Christian as any other sin, and call for rebuke.

Further, I simply set forth the fact that I'm interested in serious discussion, and not empty folly. If you have some of that to offer, please do. Otherwise, I don't expect I'll be replying to you any further.

 

[Harley4Him]

Originally posted by jmgainor:
Slander and gossip are as unworthy of the Christian as any other sin, and call for rebuke.

Further, I simply set forth the fact that I'm interested in serious discussion, and not empty folly. If you have some of that to offer, please do.

Dude, I was just offering you a compliment on your insightfulness, charity, and humility! How could a True Christian have missed that?

 

[BobRyan]

I repent of having been a member of a church which has a history of using terror, bloodshed, torture, lies, fraud, control and manipulation. I repent of my loyalty to the popes.

Ahh a Catholic voice AGREEING with the Catholic news release from Vatican city where Papal sources admit to this SAME thing!!

So how many ways are there to "deny" what they have said?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[MikeS]

Originally posted by jmgainor:
The Rock on which the Church is being built is Christ, and not Peter. There is a lot of material that can be brought forth for that, and all of the Peter = (the) 'rock' arguments are found to be unpersuasive when looked deeply into. They are all built on specious and shallow reasoning—assuming conclusions that are founded on false premises. They are subtle enough to fool the masses, but can't stand up under scrutiny.

What is subtle about taking the Scripture at face value: "You are Rock, and on this rock I will build my church..."

Why is the real meaning of that line so different from the obvious meaning that one has to "look deeply" into the matter to find the truth?

And, if Christ really meant "You are Rock, and on this rock (different rock - me) I will build my church." then doesn't this qualify as the most inelegant language to be found in all the gospels? Why would Christ say something in a way subtle enough to fool the masses? Does He only want to save scholars?

 

[jmgainor]

Originally posted by MikeS:
What is subtle about taking the Scripture at face value: "You are Rock, and on this rock I will build my church..."

Why is the real meaning of that line so different from the obvious meaning that one has to "look deeply" into the matter to find the truth?

And, if Christ really meant "You are Rock, and on this rock (different rock - me) I will build my church." then doesn't this qualify as the most inelegant language to be found in all the gospels? Why would Christ say something in a way subtle enough to fool the masses? Does He only want to save scholars? [/QB]

Mike, what is subtle is the fact that it is nowhere near as simplistic as you imply here. You are here only parroting the same old tired arguments that are rooted in and thrive on ignorance. The fact is that petros and petra are two different words with two different meanings. And before you respond with the same old ignorant argument about a Hebrew/Aramaic Kepa/Kepa original which your blind and deceitful leaders have instilled into your willing mind (and please don't waste your and my time listing all the 'Protestant' 'scholars' who have said the same thing), take a little bit of your time and read/study these three pages from the Papacy Uncovered website:

Matthew 16.18
Upon This Rock
Hebrew of Matthew

These pages will make it very clear why your argument/explanation is completely untenable.

It is simply amazing that a body of people that claims to be the stewards of the Gospel and the repository of the Holy Spirit would be so willingly misled and tenaciously blind to the truth.

When you can address the arguments I set forth in those three pages, then we can talk.

I'm also yet waiting for a response from Carson. At this point I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt that he isn't trying to pull a silent dodge disappearing act on me. He may be preparing a response to our preceding exchange; but I wouldn't be entirely surprised if he just doesn't have one (and I would be a little surprised if he does).

Mike

 

[MikeS]

Originally posted by jmgainor:
You are here only parroting the same old tired arguments that are rooted in and thrive on ignorance....And before you respond with the same old ignorant argument about a Hebrew/Aramaic Kepa/Kepa original which your blind and deceitful leaders have instilled into your willing mind (and please don't waste your and my time listing all the 'Protestant' 'scholars' who have said the same thing)....It is simply amazing that a body of people that claims to be the stewards of the Gospel and the repository of the Holy Spirit would be so willingly misled and tenaciously blind to the truth.

Wow, I ask some questions in good faith and I get back parroting, old, tired and ignorant arguments, blind and deceitful leaders, don't waste my time, willingly misled, blind to the truth. Did I leave any out? Probably.

In your short time here you've shown yourself to be quite a piece of work. It's only taken a handful of posts for us to know you by your fruits, and they're not pretty.

 

[D28guy]

Mike,

"It is simply amazing that a body of people that claims to be the stewards of the Gospel and the repository of the Holy Spirit would be so willingly misled and tenaciously blind to the truth."

It is exceedingly amazing. But even more so, it is exceedingly sad.

Grace and peace,

Mike

 

[jmgainor]

Originally posted by MikeS:
Wow, I ask some questions in good faith and I get back parroting, old, tired and ignorant arguments, blind and deceitful leaders, don't waste my time, willingly misled, blind to the truth. Did I leave any out? Probably.

In your short time here you've shown yourself to be quite a piece of work. It's only taken a handful of posts for us to know you by your fruits, and they're not pretty.

Mike, If I've spoken to one of you papists, I've spoken to a hundred of you. And It's always the same attitude. In essence, "We're the One True Church, and praise the Pope, and damn the truth—'cause we don't need it and we're not interested in it."

I came here and found you and others mocking and slandering not just Mary Ann Collins, but everyone else who has forsaken popery in order to faithfully follow Christ. Do you want me to go back and dig up quotes? I'm giving you back exactly what you dish out. If you expect me to come in here and offer to you Christian respect and affection and love, as to a brother, I won't because you're not. You are a heretic!

The frauds, and deceits, and arrogance, and murders, and idolatry, and rebellion against Christ and his Gospel that is the fruit of popery bears eloquent witness against it that it is the work of demons, and not of the Holy Spirit. If you had enough of the love of the truth in you to even care about it, you would have taken the time to look at the material I set before you, and offer a reasoned response. I've provided you with all the proof that any person with a sincere heart and the desire to know the truth should need.

If you think you have the truth, and I'm wrong, then show it with some substance. Otherwise, repent, and beg the gracious God of Heaven to have mercy on you and to free you from the darkness that holds you captive.

 

[faithcontender]

Hi jmgainor,

I hope we have more like you who will stand for the truth and have the courage to expose those who pervert it.

May God continue to give you the courage and boldness to face headlong the enemy of the truth.

 

[dumbox1]

Wow -- a potpourri of "papist" "popery" references. It's like being in a time warp!

Mark H.

 

[GraceSaves]

If there is one thing I've learned in my tenure here, it's that no one loves a parrot but everyone loves a mockingbird.

Heaven forbid we have a unified understanding of doctrine or use common teaching examples. I was not aware of that time-tested Christian tennet that says to explain a belief one must use new and intriguing words that no one has ever heard before.

I happen to follow that time-tested philosophy of "use what works."

 

[Brother Adam]

jmgainor,

Your website is a joke.

Sincerely,
~A historic Baptist

 

[MikeS]

Originally posted by jmgainor:

Mike, If I've spoken to one of you papists, I've spoken to a hundred of you.

More fruit drops from the tree...